Tribe.net. Local Connections $item.owner.firstName http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#57cbf31d-daa4-4e28-a82f-269572092d14 2006-03-05T03:15:33Z 2006-03-05T03:15:33Z

I guess I'd better get busy and kill off all the SOMs I've got in the lab! ;) SA

$item.owner.firstName 2006-03-05T03:15:33Z equilibs http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#b7082d22-f0d8-4462-9246-1e5f9b970cf9 2006-03-04T23:47:39Z 2006-03-04T23:47:39Z

here's one kiss... :)

equilibs 2006-03-04T23:47:39Z Nina http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#6b1769f6-c0ce-464d-8e4c-f75123898977 2006-02-28T19:19:15Z 2006-02-28T19:19:13Z

i dont think that they would necessarily have to be actually (physically) linked together...couldnt it be more of satellite communication with gps for coordinates? I personally think that if the right minds got together now with the appropriate amount of funding that alife is possible in its almost fullest potential form today...I am not for it, Im just saying I think its possible. And about these forms being 'trapped interacting with each other,' isnt that just similar to society? The human race is not the only species, yet we (the majority) seem to think that it is a lot of the time, so are not we too trapped by the confines of having to pay most attention to those of our own species in order to survive?

Nina 2006-02-28T19:19:13Z $item.owner.firstName http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#7ed14f21-5a5d-4333-b07b-eb49c4aa6cd2 2005-12-09T19:28:16Z 2005-12-09T19:28:16Z

I am the originator of this thread. I apologize for unsubscribing: something happened outside of tribe.net to make me believe I shouldn't be sharing ideas on the web. But I was mistaken, and I have re-subscribed! (Part of the problem had to do with the so-called Theory of Everything, in physics, which I discovered a few years ago, which I would share now, for kisses.)

$item.owner.firstName 2005-12-09T19:28:16Z $item.owner.firstName http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#6488df4d-2f2f-43a9-8abe-d97abc5164f0 2005-11-28T22:02:56Z 2005-11-28T22:02:56Z

... If the machine parts are to remove flaws from each other as they grow, but without using extra parts to sense each other and move deliberately, then they must maintain each other by moving through a series of positions which repeats itself eventually, automatically. Otherwise they will lose track of what they are doing. And then also, they have to always be attached to, or in some other way trapped interacting with, each other, so they don't lose track of each other. And so, they would be either constantly attached, however loosely, or otherwise they would be set up to move independently, but held together inside a container, or a force field, where they meet again eventually...

$item.owner.firstName 2005-11-28T22:02:56Z phil http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#c17afdb2-5927-4ce3-a2d4-79097fdeee37 2005-11-28T15:43:48Z 2005-11-28T15:43:48Z

I think this is getting at something interesting, though I'd like to know more how you characterise "fluid chemical cycles"

phil 2005-11-28T15:43:48Z $item.owner.firstName http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#bb4b92ae-a865-4c14-bc10-068ef438c47f 2005-11-27T23:24:29Z 2005-11-27T23:24:29Z

Thanks, I just meant to say that if the machine doesn't have fluid chemical cycles which are self-regulating, then it can't replicate - for the simple reason that any other form of machine will need an extra set of tools or molds to create it and repair it. The chemical cycles maintain themselves, and also divide without needing specific forms external to them. A biological cell can be in many possible shapes/contortions, and still the chemical cycles work. And so the cell can usually come back to a normal range of states if tweaked and as it grows. But if the machine is made of anything more rigid, then as it grows, any flaws would need to be attended to from the outside, requiring another machine, or another part of the same machine. If two parts of the same machine are expected to maintain each other, then they would have to have either sensory input and deliberate movements, however simple they may be, or a cyclical pattern of behavior, because otherwise, one of them wouldn't know when to stop what it's doing to let the other fix it. If they have sensory input, then and deliberate action, then the extra parts necessary for that system will also need attending to, on a smaller scale, requiring a smaller version of a part which does fixes. If they move cyclically, maintaining each other in a rhythm - (more later, I'm on a public computer!) Thanks.

$item.owner.firstName 2005-11-27T23:24:29Z phil http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#8e681a47-420a-4730-8663-f95e3b56189a 2005-11-27T15:47:43Z 2005-11-27T15:47:43Z

Seems to be a lot wrapped up in this. For example, the lumping together of "biological" and "cellular chemistry". I suspect all succesful complex systems have some sort of hierarchy (that's the Herbert Simon point) which includes redundancy and repeated "cells". Everything physical must have a "chemistry". But I don't see that the chemistry has to be anything like our carbon-based one in order to build self-replication. I'd use the word "biological" to mean the "logic" of the kind of complex systems which can grow, adapt and reproduce. So in this sense, I think self-replicating machines are "biological". Because biology should be broad enough to study anything with these properties. (Including aritficial things) At the same time. I don't think such machines have to be "alive". "Life" is a tricky thing to define, but I'm willing to (provisionally) put myself into the camp which says life must do some kind of metabolising / thermodynamic work-cycle (see Stewart Kauffman). Whereas I suspect there could be self-reproducing virtual machines (patterns in cellular automata) which self-replicate but don't metabolise.

phil 2005-11-27T15:47:43Z Strange http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#153a3766-afa5-48b0-886b-38f6ac5a5843 2005-11-27T00:00:01Z 2005-11-27T00:00:01Z

Why do you think so Peter? and i am not sure that i understand what did you want to say by this - to resemble biological cell (artificial cell) or to be by its origin biological? we don`t have any proofs for now that self replicating machines must be like biological to be able to reproduce themselves. i just wonder on what basis did you come to this conclusion. Is it kind of intuition? I believe that we can create genuinly new kind of self replicateing machines or even new kind of life, which will not be alike biological life or machines as we know them today. I am not sure what i am talking about yet, it is just kind of pre-cognition. But we see that science is going in that way. Scientists finally realized that copying biological life doesen`t lead to anywhere so they begin creating completely new solutions. And BTW - are you talking about 'life force' ?

Strange 2005-11-27T00:00:01Z $item.owner.firstName http://alife.tribe.net/thread/a30f5d0c-1e8c-48b3-a3be-32c023ad1e61#f9aa4eb1-a774-4080-a860-2c891ad4aad2 2005-11-26T21:52:04Z 2005-11-26T21:52:04Z

Has anyone else come to the same conclusion: that whatever replicates itself necessarily has to have cellular chemistry?

$item.owner.firstName 2005-11-26T21:52:04Z